Sorry, I wasn't very precise.
OWL doesn't have disjunction, instead it has a union construct. (Which is
in many ways quite similar.)
So, this advice was to use to use unionOf from OWL.
peter
From: "Stephen K. Rhoads" <rhoads@thrupoint.net>
Subject: Re: Domain/Range Woes
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:44:17 -0500
> Peter,
>
> Can you elaborate on the last option -- "Use a more expressive logic such as
> OWL that allows disjunction (in its DL form) or allows you to attach range
> restrictions to classes rather than to predicates." I don't see any
> reference in the OWL Guide to disjunction. Or did you mean "disjoint"
> although I can't see how that would help.
>
> How would I achieve this? Create some kind of class extension and assign it
> as the domain of the predicate?
>
> --- Stephen
>
> >
> > > From: Stephen K. Rhoads [mailto:rhoads@thrupoint.net]
> > > In particular, I find that I have many predicates
> > > which apply equally to seemingly disparate types of classes.
> >
> > Could a user of your schema wish to apply your predicates to some other
> > classes of which you have not yet thought? If this is possible, range
> > and domain constraints would seem inappropriate.
> >
> > > What are my options (short of copping out and using, for example,
> > > "movieDirectedBy" / "programDirectedBy" or "personName" /
> > > "providerName")?
> >
> > - Don't use domain/range constraints;
> >
> > - Use domain/range constraints on inherited superclasses;
> >
> > - Use a more expressive logic such as OWL that allows disjunction (in
> > its DL form) or allows you to attach range restrictions to classes
> > rather than to predicates.
> >
>